Steerable wheeled boards such as skateboards and all terrain boards (ATBs) are widely used for sport, recreation and transportation. Generally these wheeled boards are steered by means of a rider shifting his weight and causing the board to tilt, thereby imparting steering forces to the wheels. The amount of turn is controlled by the amount of tilt. The traditional skateboard consists of a board—commonly called a ‘deck’, mounted on top of two sets of small solid wheels located at the front and rear. Though functional, the skateboard's inherent design limits its range of operation to smooth, hard surfaces and relatively slower speeds. To compensate for this, a new type of board came into existence. Larger wheeled boards, commonly referred to as ATBs, or mountainboards, generally use larger pneumatic wheels spaced farther apart on stout elongated decks, which raise ground clearances and lengthen wheel bases allowing operation on surfaces considerably rougher than those suitable for traditional skateboards. However, the emergence of ATBs has created a new set of concerns for riders. The ride is usually faster and rougher, and the abilities to steer, stop, stay on and quickly dismount the board have become issues of great concern.
The wheeled board prior art does not teach the features and advantages of the Applicant's steering and control design, braking mechanism or binding components. U.S. Pat. No. 5,997,018 to Lee (1999) discloses an ATB with four pneumatic wheels attached to an elongated deck, and narrow tubular foot binders. The rectangular ‘footprint’ of this ATB, outlined by the wheel placement when viewing from above, is not conducive to good handling or maneuvering, and can create severe wobbling tendencies at moderate to high speeds. Lee's binding tubes cross over the tops of the riders feet, making it difficult to exercise the quick dismounts that become necessary when traveling at higher speeds over rougher terrain. Lee also employs a one handed braking device, limiting the braking force of the ATB to whatever pressure a typical rider can muster from the use of that one hand. U.S. Pat. No. 5,975,229 to Hosada (1999) discloses a similar four wheeled conveyance with motor propulsion. U.S. Pat. No. 5,169,166 (1992), U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,235 (1993), U.S. Pat. No. 5,330,214 (1994), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,865 (1996), all to Brooks, disclose further variations where the wheels of the board are able to lean in correspondence with the tilt of the deck, but again utilizing the same rectangular footprint. U.S. Pat. No. 5,551,717 to Milne (1996) discloses a three-wheeled conveyance board that positions two wheels at the front and one at the rear of an elongated deck, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,950,754 to Ondrish (1999) discloses a similar three-wheeled board with motor propulsion. Although the triangular footprint of the three-wheeled design is an improvement over ATBs with the rectangular type footprint, the core issues of steering and handling, braking ability, and safe but effective binding systems are still not adequately addressed. Other conveyance boards using only two wheels can also be found in the prior art. U.S. Pat. No. 4,445,699 to Darasko (1984) discloses a design that imparts rotary motions supplied by a riders foot into steering forces, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,991,861 to Carn et al. discloses a more conventional design that uses board tilt and rider lean to impart steering forces. While this approach does provide some advantages, they are overshadowed by the design's lack of stability and control.
The braking and binding components disclosed in the wheeled board prior art also fails to anticipate the applicant's designs. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,076,266 to Krausz (1978), a one handed brake design is disclosed. A similar one handed device can be seen in U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,348 to Miller (2000). The problem with this approach is the braking force required to stop an ATB is often greater is than the force the rider can apply with one hand. Other boards that employ foot operated brakes require the riders to adjust their footing during the ride, which can seriously compromise the riders ability to simultaneously steer or control the board. A binding feature disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,919 to Tinkler (1996) provides foot supports located at opposite ends of a skateboard deck, prohibiting the ability of a rider to quickly regain his or her balance, or ‘feet first’ attitude after a forced ground or ariel dismount of the board, as does the binding feature seen in U.S. Pat. No. 6,193,276 to Sottile et al. (2001). U.S. Pat. No. 6,089,592 to Negus (2000) discloses a skateboard harness assembly that adheres the rider to the board in a loose and unpredictable manner.